It seems like the author only picked the statistics that make Romo look better than Rodgers. I also think it's hard to compare QB's when has played 1 1/2 more seasons than the other.

I think Romo is closer to Rodgers than most people give him credit for. He loses some points because up until last year, his teams had declined in December and then they were one-and-done in the playoffs, and Romo seemed to be part of the problem. We don't have enough material to judge Rodgers on yet in those situations.

The author's reliance on yards per attempt and winning percentage, to the exclusion of everything else, is pretty silly. Yards per attempt has a lot to do with the kind of offense a team runs. The Cowboys throw deep more and rely more on the running game to pick up the tough yards. And of course winning percentage has a lot to do with defense, which the Packers didn't have much of in 2008.

---

This author is dumb. He basically said that Romo is better because his YPA stat was better...by not even 1 yard.

---

While everyone argues about Rodgers and Romo, I'll gladly take Phillip Rivers. :)

Personally, I think Rodgers is better than Romo. Romo plays in an offense that wants to do down the field with the football. Rodgers plays in the west coast offense, which obviously is different. Though lately, Green Bay has been trying their best Cowboy or Saint impression.

My point there is that it's apples and oranges. Is Joe Montana a lesser QB than someone who went down the field often? Maybe Terry Bradshaw. I'm working off the top of my head, so I'm not sure what the stats really look like. Regardless, Montana is better IMO.

Also, Romo does have a year in a half more experience starting than Rodgers and like someone in this thread stated, he has one playoff win in that span. Rodgers played in one playoff game and his team put up 40-plus points. Granted, he was careless with the ball, but he was still unbelievable.

Isn't Dallas the most talented team in the league? Not that I agree with that, but that seems to be the consensus.

Though I would argue that both QBs are overrated. I wouldn't rank either in my top five based on what I've seen. Now maybe something is wrong and Rodgers or Romo gets going, but I think the media has over hyped both these guys. Let's see these guys develop, especially Rodgers.

---

I didn't see too many balls going deep this year compared to last year. Not sure where that comment is coming from.

---

This dude apparently has no idea that our defensive from 7 was completely decimated that year. That ain't on Rodgers.

---

His comment that Romo's 95.3 passer rating, with 114 TDs and 60 Ints is 'very close to Rodgers' is out of whack. The 95.3 may be close to Rodgers' 96.4, but the 114/60 isn't.

He states that Rodgers has 68 TDs and 27 Ints. If you double the TDs/Ints to keep the % the same, you get close to the same number of Ints (60 for Romo to 54 for Rodgers), but Rodgers has 136 TDs to Romo's 114. That's 22 more TDs while still throwing six fewer Ints. THAT's not close.

The bottomline for me is, would I trade Rodgers for Romo? Would I rather have Romo as my QB???

Nope. Not a chance. Forget it. I'd MUCH rather have Rodgers.

---

Yep, like I said, 33% better TD/int ratio for Rodgers compared to Romo's 5% better yards per attempt. Even when he is trying to nitpick statistics to make Romo seems better he fails.

And I like Romo, I would take him shortly after Rodgers if I'm going down the list.

---

This guy is just crying because not enough people are giving Romo more love. It don't matter. Wait until after they have both started for 10 seasons and then start to make so comparisons. Even then it may not be fair. There have been plenty of good QBs that played on really horrible teams. That doesn't make them less of a QB. Just unlucky.

---

I think its funny someone's crying for love from Romo. I remember not long ago when all you heard was how great Romo was at this that and the other thing.

---